He said that all he said was right but also said "not to belive what you hear from other, not even if I said it, only belive in what you found out to be true by yourself using the method I teach, I teach the method". Am I wrong ?

Oups, after a single google search found it to be fake but the original words from witch this derived are not extremelly different. Even if fake, it sounds like something budha would say so it did not ring any bells in my head. Sry

Alex123 wrote:It is simply not right for, lets say Christians, to say to atheists that "it is your faith that God doesn't exist". Same is here, except replace "God" with "rebirth".

In a way this is correct, because an atheist asserts the non-existence of God but cannot prove it. And absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

We can observe the universe and learn more and more of its laws (and prove them), but we cannot observe God. Adding conception of God just complicates, not simplifies. Who created God? how can God exist outside of time/space?, etc.Adding a new entity which is not needed, and which adds more complications also violates Occam's razor.

So both beliefs do NOT have equal amount of concrete evidence (alex: edited for clarity).

Last edited by Alex123 on Tue May 14, 2013 8:04 pm, edited 2 times in total.

"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

Probability has no importance in a context like this. It you care about probability then you should be a christian/muslim because of the "Pascal bet". Even if there would be 0,00001 probability, anything above 0 you should be a christian/muslim/any religion that says you are going to eternal hell if they are right.

dxm_dxm wrote:Probability has no importance in a context like this. It you care about probability then you should be a christian/muslim because of the "Pascal bet". Even if there would be 0,00001 probability, anything above 0 you should be a christian/muslim/any religion that says you are going to eternal hell if they are right.

Pascal's wager doesn't work when there is more than one idea of God, and more than one idea about the true way to heaven/Nibbāna. Just because we cannot disprove something, it is not a reason to believe in it. I can't absolutely disprove Zeus, Wotan, Allah, Jehovah, Hades, (or whomever), illusion, Descartes demon, 5-minute earth, etc. But taking current knowledge and absence of proof (other than testimony in holy books), these things are too unlikely. There are better and testable theories out there.

A person who got visions (and perhaps became a prophet for a new religion), can simply be hallucinating, dreaming, or imagining. While I don't doubt his sincerity and honesty, those claims that cannot be verified are not convincing proof.

Authority of scriptures is also not a proof. Different books claim different things, and wise apologetics can twist them so that one cannot refute them and thus claim "they are true because you can't disprove them".

Mere logical arguments, without being tested, verified, and without falsifiability are not as valid. Two equally skilled clever, smart, witty and eloquent philosophers can equally well argue for contradictory view points.

"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

Alex123 wrote:We can observe the universe and learn more and more of its laws (and prove them), but we cannot observe God. Adding conception of God just complicates, not simplifies. Who created God? how can God exist outside of time/space?, etc.Adding a new entity which is not needed, and which adds more complications also violates Occam's razor.

So both beliefs are NOT of equal probability.

It looks like you have not studied much science nor theology after all ...

binocular wrote:It looks like you have not studied much science nor theology after all ...

That is your assertion. It is easy to say "you are wrong. You don't know anything". Prove it. Write something better. Why should we believe more in God (and which one?), than in what modern science has evidence for?

"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

They say it's not possible to defeat an ignorant man in argument ... nor show him much.

The burden of proof lies on the one who wants to understand or prevail.

Look, if you think you've reached the pinnacle of human wisdom and knowledge - then that's what you think. If you're still not happy, then you might want to investigate how come, and whether you're really at the top.

Alex123 wrote:Adding a new entity which is not needed, and which adds more complications also violates Occam's razor.

So science says there was the big bang, where apparently everything came out of nothing with no prior cause. And religion says that God created everything, again presumably out of nothing but with God as the prior cause. I'm not sure how conclusive Occams razor would be in this scenario.

"I ride tandem with the random, Things don't run the way I planned them, In the humdrum."Peter Gabriel lyric

Alex123 wrote:Adding a new entity which is not needed, and which adds more complications also violates Occam's razor.

So science says there was the big bang, where apparently everything came out of nothing with no prior cause. And religion says that God created everything, again presumably out of nothing but with God as the prior cause. I'm not sure how conclusive Occams razor would be in this scenario.

The big bang theory doesn't necessarily entail that it came out of nothing, that's simply one idea floating around about what was going on before the big bang. There are other theories that include the big bang theory that do not suppose that it happened spontaneously without cause.

Also, there seems to be some misuse of words going on, there is a difference between established scientific fact, which you could colloquially shorten to 'science says', and scientific theories, which are basically metaphysical theories backed up by certain math equations and a certain amount of evidence but not enough to say that it is fact.

Last edited by polarbear101 on Wed May 15, 2013 10:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

"I don't envision a single thing that, when developed & cultivated, leads to such great benefit as the mind. The mind, when developed & cultivated, leads to great benefit."

"I don't envision a single thing that, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about such suffering & stress as the mind. The mind, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about suffering & stress."

polarbuddha101 wrote:There is no such thing as a logical proof for rebirth or kamma.

Rebirth is logically possible but it isn't logically necessitated. So please, don't even attempt to use logic to prove rebirth, it just looks bad.

dharmakirti and all of his commentators for 1500 years have given incontrovertible reasonings for rebirth. unless youre a scholar, dont try to speak as if you have a clue what you are talking about.

I have read on rebirth by dharmakirti (or dignaga?), hoping to have some proof, and the arguments were REALLY weak. They may have worked for medieval Tibetan serfs, but would not stand against modern technological discoveries and modern knowledge in neurology, etc.

really, what did you read? since you have trouble understanding the concept of noself, i have hard time believing that you understand dharmakirti or dignaga. it takes several years to study them

also i doubt you even know how to follow indian debate format, so how could you possibly even follow his syllogisms?

A Japanese man has been arrested on suspicion of writing a computer virus that destroys and replaces files on a victim PC with manga images of squid, octopuses and sea urchins. Masato Nakatsuji, 27, of Izumisano, Osaka Prefecture, was quoted as telling police: "I wanted to see how much my computer programming skills had improved since the last time I was arrested."

because the function of a particle can only effect things of similar type ie. other particles.sheer awareness that you are using right now does not impact physical things. it does not occupy space. you cant smash your awareness with a hammer

A Japanese man has been arrested on suspicion of writing a computer virus that destroys and replaces files on a victim PC with manga images of squid, octopuses and sea urchins. Masato Nakatsuji, 27, of Izumisano, Osaka Prefecture, was quoted as telling police: "I wanted to see how much my computer programming skills had improved since the last time I was arrested."

5heaps wrote:sheer awareness that you are using right now does not impact physical things.

Are you saying that mental activity doesn't impact the physical world or are you just talking about awareness? To be a buddhist, you have to accept that mental decisions can move the physical body that consciousness is bound to, otherwise you're an epiphenomenalist determinist.

"I don't envision a single thing that, when developed & cultivated, leads to such great benefit as the mind. The mind, when developed & cultivated, leads to great benefit."

"I don't envision a single thing that, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about such suffering & stress as the mind. The mind, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about suffering & stress."

there is a difference between weak and strong emergence. the strong emergence of awareness is currently known as 'the hard problem of consciousness', for which there is not even any slight clue of how to deal with in the scientific community, nor has there been much progress in the last couple of decades.

also even in emergence theory, about which very little is known, new systems which emerge must still follow rules. for example, an infinite amount of something which physically obstructs, no matter how it is arranged, no matter what shape you make, no matter what complex function you make, can ever give rise to something that does not physically obstruct

A Japanese man has been arrested on suspicion of writing a computer virus that destroys and replaces files on a victim PC with manga images of squid, octopuses and sea urchins. Masato Nakatsuji, 27, of Izumisano, Osaka Prefecture, was quoted as telling police: "I wanted to see how much my computer programming skills had improved since the last time I was arrested."

porpoise wrote:So science says there was the big bang, where apparently everything came out of nothing with no prior cause.

We cannot study what was (if anything) before big bang, so question about prior causes is speculative.

porpoise wrote: And religion says that God created everything, again presumably out of nothing but with God as the prior cause.

Religion says that there was God who created and/or controls this universe. We can study the universe and how it develops, yet we can't seem to find God or his place. How can God be scientifically tested?

porpoise wrote:I'm not sure how conclusive Occams razor would be in this scenario.

If God is not needed to explain the mysteries, and if God is an extra layer - then it might be extra phenomenon.

"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

I have a book where his arguments are presented. For example there was example which goes something like: even though one's body doesn't change, the mind can still change, thus mind is independent of the body. This is totally false. Today through fMRI and other advanced machines we can see that physical processes can occur in the brain, even if they are not visible to naked eye. In medieval Tibet they didn't have these machines to see the physical changes that can occur prior or at the moment mind changes.

I am perfectly willing to believe that mind can exist without the brain if it is proven. For example: if person could answer simple questions with ZERO brain activity happening at that exact time (measured by fMRI and similar means). That would convince me.

"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

I have a book where his arguments are presented. For example there was example which goes something like: even though one's body doesn't change, the mind can still change, thus mind is independent of the body. This is totally false. Today through fMRI and other advanced machines we can see that physical processes can occur in the brain, even if they are not visible to naked eye. In medieval Tibet they didn't have these machines to see the physical changes that can occur prior or at the moment mind changes.

I am perfectly willing to believe that mind can exist without the brain if it is proven. For example: if person could answer simple questions with ZERO activity in the brain responsible for that, then I would believe.

what is the book called?you dont have a clue what you are talking about. in buddhism, all compounded things are momentary things. dharmakirti never says that the body is unchanging. the body cannot even endure for a second moment according to subtle impermanence, which is basic buddhism, let alone anything to do with emptiness theory.

a person will never answer a question with zero brain activity according to buddhism. they maintain that position but also the position that the brain and awareness are not synonymous

A Japanese man has been arrested on suspicion of writing a computer virus that destroys and replaces files on a victim PC with manga images of squid, octopuses and sea urchins. Masato Nakatsuji, 27, of Izumisano, Osaka Prefecture, was quoted as telling police: "I wanted to see how much my computer programming skills had improved since the last time I was arrested."